The Democratic controlled Senate will pass it on to Obama for his signature.

Ratification requires 67 votes. About 50 senators say they would vote against ratification. Ratified or unratified, it has no effect on our Second Amendment rights.

SCOTUS, in Reid vs Covert, ruled that treaties to not supercede the US Constitution.

Quote:

Article VI, the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, declares:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; . . .

There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution. Nor is there anything in the debates which accompanied the drafting and ratification of the Constitution which even suggests such a result. These debates, as well as the history that surrounds the adoption of the treaty provision in Article VI, make it clear that the reason treaties were not limited to those made in "pursuance" of the Constitution was so that agreements made by the United States under the Articles of Confederation, including the important peace treaties which concluded the Revolutionary [p17] War, would remain in effect. [n31] It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the Constitution, as well as those who were responsible for the Bill of Rights -- let alone alien to our entire constitutional history and tradition -- to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under an international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions. [n32] In effect, such construction would permit amendment of that document in a manner not sanctioned by Article V. The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government, and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.

There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty. [n33] For example, in Geofroy v. Riggs, 133 U.S. 258, 267, it declared:

The treaty power, as expressed in the Constitution, is in terms unlimited except by those restraints which are found in that instrument against the action of the government or of its departments, and those arising from the nature of the government itself and of that of the States. It would not be contended that it extends so far as to authorize what the Constitution forbids, or a change in the character of the [p18] government, or in that of one of the States, or a cession of any portion of the territory of the latter, without its consent.

This Court has also repeatedly taken the position that an Act of Congress, which must comply with the Constitution, is on a full parity with a treaty, and that, when a statute which is subsequent in time is inconsistent with a treaty, the statute to the extent of conflict renders the treaty null. [n34] It would be completely anomalous to say that a treaty need not comply with the Constitution when such an agreement can be overridden by a statute that must conform to that instrument.

Reaffirming the sovereign right of any State to regulate and control
conventional arms exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or
constitutional system

And this phrase:

Quote:
Mindful of the legitimate trade and lawful ownership, and use of certain
conventional arms for recreational, cultural, historical, and sporting activities, where such trade, ownership and use are permitted or protected by law:

The reason I don't care for the treaty is that it's a steaming pile of hypocrisy for us to ratify it. Outside the Soviet Union, we've historically been one of the biggest suppliers of arms to rogue states and organizations. Nicaragua? Liberia? Sudan? Mobutu Soko's regime in the DRC? The Mujahideen, I mean, Taliban? We armed them.

Then there are the 2,000 weapons smuggled to the Sinaloa cartel on this administration's watch. In no conceivable way do we occupy the moral high ground on this one.

The reason I don't care for the treaty is that it's a steaming pile of hypocrisy for us to ratify it. Outside the Soviet Union, we've historically been one of the biggest suppliers of arms to rogue states and organizations.

Exactly!!!

The US is currently shippings arms and ammo to rebel groups in Syria; never mind that some weapons will their way into the hands of allies of al Queda.

I can't see this by itself bringing about any sort of gun confiscation, but I do most certainly see it making imported guns harder to obtain (as if imports weren't restricted enough already.)

__________________
NCO of Marines, 3rd Award Expert Rifle, 236 KD Range
D Co, 4th CEB, Engineers UP!! OEF 21JUN-20SEP2011
REV. 19:11 And I saw heaven opened, and behold a white horse; and he that sat upon him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.

The completed SALT II agreement was signed by President Carter and General Secretary Brezhnev in Vienna on June 18, 1979. President Carter transmitted it to the Senate on June 22 for its advice and consent to ratification.

On January 3, 1980, however, President Carter requested the Senate majority leader to delay consideration of the Treaty on the Senate floor in view of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Although the Treaty remained unratified, each Party was individually bound under the terms of international law to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of the Treaty, until it had made its intentions clear not to become a party to the Treaty.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Once it is signed, a treaty will have teeth even if the Senate never gets around to ratifying it. If there are not enough votes to ratify the treaty, it is possible that Harry Reid (or his successor) will prevent the Senate from ever voting on ratification.

Politically impossible to ratify, a purely symbolic display, a wish for a world that currently doesn't exist, that describes the event. It might be more significant to gather at the beach before sunrise link hands and hum.

In broad strokes, this sounds parallel to what has been happening nationally.

The US gov'ts keep passing laws to stop violence and trafficking of guns. These laws negatively affect the good citizens while the criminals ignore them.

Now the UN is trying to do the same thing on a global level which puts the U.S. on the other end of the argument-where we are signing this treaty while sending arms at the very same time to Syria.

It will be interesting to see how the very same people who creatively try to kill the 2nd amendment will justify future actions when they feel the need supply another country with arms without a background check nor care where those weapons end up.
(ironically, this is a global version of the 'gun show' loophole they have twisted except it is a little worse , no background check, it is using tax dollars that came out of our paychecks and it's not even face to face).

Senators have warned that the treaty has to be ratified by the Senate (probably because Obama has a history of violating the Constitution and ignoring requirements for Congressional authorization).

If Obama signs the treaty it still has to be ratified by the Senate. But its’ important to note that the Constitution doesn’t require 2/3 of the Senate to approve — only 2/3 of those PRESENT have to sign it. Will Harry Reid schedule a vote during a recess to get it ratified?

I was never under the impression that this administration was the least bit supportive of the 2nd Amendment, but this isn't a 2nd Amendment issue.

But gun regulation is not all tied to the 2nd Amendment.

__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.